NileValleyPeoples

Tuesday, May 15, 2018

The "alt-right" is sometimes conceived of as racist, sexist and homophobic, but the last category is being blurred quite a bit. Per several analyses, there is a fair amount of evidence that gays are being increasingly represented in "alt-right", and indeed, "alt-right" leaders and operatives may be using shrewd tactics- sex and camp (a species of flamboyance) - to attract young gay males. How so you ask? Well pilgrim, several web articles break it down, as shown below:

"How the Alt-Right Is Using Sex and Camp to Attract Gay Men to Fascism"
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2017/06/05/how_alt_right_leaders_jack_donovan_and_james_o_meara_attract_gay_men_to.html

The Philosophical Fascists of the Gay Alt-Right
https://www.thecut.com/2017/04/jack-donovan-philosophical-fascists-of-the-gay-alt-right.html

The troubling ascent of the LGBT right wing
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/26/ascent-lgbt-right-wing-afd

Still the dread negro cometh..
SLATE.com for example, describes vocal gay commenters and contributors in the Occidental Observer, "one of the most prominent white nationalist web publications," as invoking the standard bogeyman of "the Negro." Cue ominous musics.. But, says adds another prominent commenter, behind the dread Negro is the sinister Jew. Hmm...

SLATE gives some other examples- QUOTE:

"In his book The Homo and the Negro, O'Meara says that gay white men represent the best of what Western culture has to offer because of their "intelligence" and "beauty," and that "Negroes" represent the worst, being incapable of "achievement." Donovan calls women "whores" and "bitches," and, when a questioner on Reddit asked him his views of the Holocaust, responded, "What is this Holocaust thing? I'm drawing a blank."Gay men have been influenced by two white nationalist ideas: the "threat" posed by Islam and the "danger" posed by immigrants.Both have become influential figures in the alt-right; horribly, they are not the only gay men to respond to an olive branch lately offered by white nationalism. The opening of this movement to cisgender gay men is a radical change, "one of the biggest changes I've seen on the right in 40 years," says Chip Berlet, co-author of Right-Wing Populism in America. In the United States, unlike in Europe, out gay men have never been welcome in white supremacist groups. The Klan and neo-Nazi groups, the main previous incarnations of white hate in this country, were and still are violently anti-queer. And while a subset of openly gay men has always been conservative (or, as in all populations, casually racist), they never sought to join the racist right.That was before groups like NPI, Counter-Currents Publishing, and American Renaissance started putting out the welcome mat. Since around 2010, some (though by no means all) groups in the leadership of the white nationalist movement have been inviting out cis gay men to speak at their conferences, write for their magazines, and be interviewed in their journals. Donovan and O'Meara, far to the right of disgraced provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, are the white nationalist movement's actual queer stars. But there are others in the ranks, like Douglas Pearce of the popular neofolk band Death in June. And there are many more gay men (and some trans women) who have been profoundly influenced by two white nationalist ideas: the "threat" posed by Islam and the "danger" posed by immigrants.Donovan tries to sugarcoat his own racist beliefs when speaking to his main fan base, gay men who like his macho looks and straight men from the "pickup artist" culture and the manosphere who are desperately trying to learn from him how to be manly. Instead, reverting to the other half of the Nazi playbook, he prefers to highlight his hatred for "effeminacy," feminism, and "weakness." A beautifully muscular man of 42 who has perfected a masculine scowl in the many photographs of himself he releases on his website and Facebook page, he functions as beefcake for the neofascist cause. He's parlayed his butch allure into a brand, earning money from a line of T-shirts and wrist guards that say things like BARBARIAN and a series of books that seek to instruct both straight and gay men in how to become more masculine and in particular, more "violent."One of my Facebook friends, a politically liberal gay man I'll call Frank, is a fan of Donovan's Facebook page "because of the visuals. I like his looks-I mean, he's bald with tattoos. He really exudes a lot of sex." Frank also likes that Donovan "trashes that whole gay club scene," which Frank finds conformist and alienating.But when Donovan says violence, he means violence. This is not BDSM. "The ability to use violence effectively is the highest value of masters," Donovan said in a 2017 speech at a fascist think tank in Germany. "It is the primary value of those who create order, who create worlds. Violence is a golden value. Violence rules. Violence is not evil-it is elemental." Though Donovan tries to mine the latent sexiness in violence for all it's worth, he is, in fact, against consensual BDSM, condemning it in a 2010 essay as part of a long list of evils that he feels has been perpetuated by gay culture: the "extreme promiscuity, sadomasochism, transvestism, transsexuality, and flamboyant effeminacy" promoted by "the pink-haired, punk rock stepchildren of feminism," gay activists. No, it's straight-up people hurting and killing other people he's endorsing.And what is all this violence for? Creating small, decentralized "homelands" in this country separated by-surprise!-race. He enthusiastically embraces an idea the alt-right calls "pan-secessionism," under which, as Donovan says in his book A Sky Without Eagles, "gangs" of white men would form "autonomous zones" for themselves and white women, where women "would not be permitted to rule or take part in … political life." The gangs would enforce racial boundary lines, because, as Donovan puts it, whites have "radically different values [and] cultures" than other people, and "loyalty requires preference. It requires discrimination."

Sho nuff. The racist Donovan at least can be appreciated for his honesty- no mealy-mouthed code words, obfuscations and dog whistle narratives- but straight up racism, and proudly gay.
Excellent. It is good to know who you are dealing with, as Malcolm X often said.
No doubt the execrations of Jim Crow were "necessary"- just as various "alt" rightists argue that Jewish liquidation was "understandable," given Jewish "parasitism" an socio-political aggression on the host body of societies, among other things.

The reader of course, would notice that among the most prominent faces of the movement, is the virulently anti-female and anti-feminist Milo Yiannopoulos, out of public favor now due to various scandals, but still widely referenced in the community, and hailed for his classic agent provocateur work. Milo is old news now, but a number of gays, some not as extreme as Donovan, have arisen to continue some variant of his basic methods and spiels.

Another interesting thing from the above SLATE piece is who laid out the welcome mat to gay participation - it is "establishment" racialists, hereditarians and right-wingers, like American Renaissance, and indeed, in extension, as SLATE notes:"since around 2010, some (though by no means all) groups in the leadership of the white nationalist movement have been inviting out cis gay men to speak at their conferences, write for their magazines, and be interviewed in their journals."

SLATE also holds that:"Gay men have been influenced by two white nationalist ideas: the "threat" posed by Islam and the "danger" posed by immigrants."

This may be so, but only in part. The other huge part, which Slate does not go into much, is the strong streak of racism already present in some segments of the gay community. Part of this is generalized white racism that appears in people who happen to be gay, but a significant slice of the problem may originate in gay culture itself some claim, whether it be latent psychological fear of domination/penetration by the "monstrous negro" (a la the analyses of Franz Fanon- see Han 2007 below) or the beauty standards of gay culture which give short shrift to those that don't meet the white ideal. The well buttressed article by Han (2007), lays out the case in detail:

Han, C.-S. (2007). They Don't Want To Cruise Your Type: Gay Men of Color and the Racial Politics of Exclusion. Social Identities: Journal for the Study of Race, Nation and Culture, 13(1), 51-67.

Despite the civil rights dialogue used by the gay community, many 'gay' organizations and members of the 'gay' community continue to exclude men of color from leadership positions and 'gay' establishments, thus continuing to add to the notion that 'gay' equals 'white'. Likewise, gay men of color experience homophobia within their racial and ethnic communities. In this paper, I discuss both the subtle and the blatant forms of racial exclusion practised in the 'gay' community as well as the homophobia found in racial and ethnic communities to examine how such practices affect gay men of color, particularly their self-esteem and their emotional well-being."

Among other things Han discusses the outright discrimination against gay men of color in bars, baths, nightclubs and other social meeting places (some of it violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964). Then there is the matter of painful personal rejection dealt out to many gays of color on top of the discrimination. Sometimes the bias is subtle. A gay black man for example might be asked for 2 or 3 forms of ID before being allowed to enter a predominantly white gay club, but if you are white, no such extra "screening" is done. The subtle aim of course is to discourage the presence of "cullud" gays, in white spaces. Now where have we seen such tactics befo' pilgrim?

Given this background or racism in some places, the transition of SOME gays to "alt right" activism was/is a natural fit. One can readily see the fertile ground just waiting for the right combination of money, personalities and vehicles- like the always on, 24/7, anonymous attack, smear and insult trolling culture of many parts of the web. The question might be not that so many gays are now on board, but rather what took the case so long to manifest itself in a definite public way.

It is not merely a question of immigration and Islam. This racist streak is deeply embedded in some parts of gay culture, or among a significant number of gays. This does not mean gays are "more racist" than other people, far from it, just that there is enough fertile ground for the alt-right to draw from, when the total picture is examined.

The other part of the embed, is a long-standing hostility to Christianity in some segments of gay culture, since Christianity calls numerous parts of that culture into question. As the book on the "alt-right" "Kill All Normies" details, the attack-smear-troll culture of said "alt-right" has little respect for Christianity or soft Christian values, something some churches in their focus on happy-clappy, no offence, prosperity-preaching, reinvention-of-me "ministries" seem to not want to address in any detail. And why not? Several churches have already accommodated themselves to the new realities, and gay priest, prophet and preacher alike stride prayerfully (and moderately) into the brave new world, with its "autonomous zones".

The transgressive-subversive sensibility- no stranger to either gay culture or the alt-right.
As one author notes:

"Paglia argued that de Sade's devaluing of the procreative female body, and his preoccupation with heterosexual and homosexual sodomy, also shared by chan culture, were not merely the product of a homosexual impulse, as argued by feminist Simone de Beauvoir, but a 'protest against relentlessly overabundant procreative nature'. .. That the transgressive values of de Sade could be taken up by a culture of misogyny and characterized an online anti-feminist movement that rejected traditional church-going conservatism should also not be a surprise. The Blakean motto adopted by the Surrealists, 'Sooner murder an infant in its cradle than nurse unacted desires', dominance as sexual 'sovereignty' and the freeing of the id from the constraints of the conscience have all descended from this transgressive tradition.

Just as Nietzsche appealed to the Nazis as a way to formulate a right-wing anti-moralism, it is precisely the transgressive sensibility that is used to excuse and rationalize the utter dehumanization of women and ethnic minorities in the alt-right online sphere now. The culture of transgression they have produced liberates their conscience from having to take seriously the potential human cost of breaking the taboo against racial politics that has held since WWII. The Sadean transgressive element of the 60s, condemned by conservatives for decades as the very heart of the destruction of civilization, the degenerate and the nihilistic, is not being challenged by the emergence of this new online right. Instead, the emergence of this new online right is the full coming to fruition of the transgressive anti-moral style,."--Angela Nagle- Kill All Normies, pg 53-54

New opportunities in today's youth culture

Some find the above developments shocking but it could be argued that it is unrealistic to expect some folk who happen to be gay to not grasp new opportunities in today's dynamic web-driven culture, particularly among web-attuned youth. After all, Gay-Lesbian-Transgender clubs on high school campuses can use fellow teens to tap into that youth culture to promote recruitment and education much more effectively than old style lectures by a previous generation. Likewise the dynamic surge of the gamer and trolling culture has struck a chord with many alienated young males, easily susceptible to the right propaganda package, and opening up new recruitment opportunities. Given these trends, there are some who see gays as adding value to the "alt-right" movement, particularly given their "taboo-busting" style and sensibility. They can say racist, sexist and anti-religious things the "squares" are hesitant to say in public, an ability enhanced by the anonymous trolling opportunities of the Internet. Says one "alt-right" media leader- Quote:

"I think gays can be particularly useful to the alt-right," Alternative Right editor Colin Liddell told me. "Our movement is a revolutionary and taboo-busting movement, and gays have the right 'psychological equipment' for that. And, because of their lack of immediate family, gays often have a stronger feeling for their 'wider family.' The left has successfully displaced this sentiment to the fake 'gay community' or to leftist causes in general, but the true wider family for gays is their particular tribal or ethnic group."
https://www.thecut.com/2017/04/jack-donovan-philosophical-fascists-of-the-gay-alt-right.html

Just to make it clear. This post makes no claim that a massive segment of the gay population is joining the "alt-right," nor is any claim made that contradicts the basic gay socio-political pattern of more general support for liberal/progressive causes, and a relatively more favorable record towards civil rights etc, much more than in most "alt" communities, where some individuals troll anti-gay material. And no there is no mass migration of gays to the old white nationalist and Ku Kluxer battle lines. Rather, the central point is the clear representation of a growing and significant number of gays in the "alt-right" and the active courting of them by some leaders of that movement.

And again to be clear, it should be definitely pointed out that some gay organizations recognize some of these problems on race, and are actively working to overcome them and raise awareness, like the "And Castro For All" group which arose in response to widespread instances of racial discrimination against gay men of color, both by individual white gays and in many venues of San Francisco's famous gay-friendly Castro District. More power to them for fighting unfairness and injustice.

Now for five last questions or issues:

1) Could envy of Jewish prosperity be in the mix in the alt-right transition? It should be the opposite- after all, Jews have been favorable towards liberalism and gay rights, including heavy gay marriage support, and are relatively well educated, like gays, on AVERAGE. And given the anti-gay critique, and anti-Jewish antipathy in many Islamic quarters, shouldn't gays and Jews (and yes some Jews are gay) be natural allies? So it would seem, but there is a logical argument to be made for the increasing movement of young males and gay males towards the lure of the alt-right. Given the well documented pattern of male decline or perceived decline and female advance, (see book above), disaffected white males see the relative prosperity and favorable socio-economic position of Jews -who contrary to the general trend, appear to be moving ahead, not falling behind. Thus philosophies such as that of Professor Kevin Macdonald, an academic lionized and embraced by the "alt-right" calling for heavy taxation on Jews and restrictions on their occupations, are increasingly attractive, particularly if said Jews can be portrayed as part of the effete "liberal elite."

2) Why the RELATIVE Trump administration silence when it comes to various controversies that can be taken as anti-gay? Aside from some kerfluffles over a limited issue, such as the transgender soldier matter, the Trump regime seems to have gone out of its way to keep gays sweet, unlike the sometimes gratuitous public controversies and baiting involving blacks, which seem so much to pump up "the base." Indeed, Trump alone among Republican candidates has waved Rainbow flags around on stage, pledges to protect LGBT folk from hateful ideologies, endorses transgender Caitlyn Jenner's use of restrooms on his properties, has received the backing of prominent gays like Peter Thiel, and refuses to expend any political capital on, or call for, rollbacks to gay marriage.

OK, you say, but since a majority of gays voted for Hilary aren't they ripe for similar baiting like blacks? Why hasn't it happened to the same extent? Could it be a matter of bait tactics being deployed where they would be most profitable in ginning up "the base" - which of course means heavy on the black bait Bubba, while going easy on a gay-tinged "silent supporter" base segment? Kid gloves for gays, the backhand for blacks so to speak?

3) Could sexual frustration and feelings of inadequacy play a part fueling the alt-right move? The "alt-right" sphere is rife with feelings of sexual frustration and inadequacy, as its lust-filled denizens lament their inability to get the female they think they "deserve." As Angela Nagle in the book Kill All Normies" explains:

"One of the dominant and consistent preoccupations running through the forum culture of the manosphere is the idea of beta and alpha males. They discuss how women prefer alpha males and either cynically use or completely ignore beta males, by which they mean low-ranking males in the stark and vicious social hierarchy through which they interpret all human interaction. Some follow the pickup artistry of bloggers like Roosh V in order to rise from a ‘nice guy’ beta to a sexually successful alpha. Roosh (aka Daryush Valizadeh) began as a pickup artist, later self-described as a neo-masculinist and flirted with the hard alt-right, who he would have found common ground with in their shared belief that feminism is a major cause of civilizational decline. He positively reviewed alt-right writer Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critiques and titled it, ‘The Damaging Effects Of Jewish Intellectualism And Activism On Western Culture’ pg 115-117

These felt inadequacies often play out in the snarling resentment towards females, and enhance both the gay line and the alt line. The gay part of the equation strips away much of the tiresome courting rituals and kowtowing that seems to give women so much perceived power, and frees the young white male to satisfy his lust for flesh relatively quickly and cheaply (voluntary participants in a promiscuous gay club are much cheaper than prostitutes for example) if a warm body is desired. And while despising female power, at the same time the beauty and attractiveness of the female must be appropriated by some males to recreate the desires perceived as denied to them in real life. Thus some take on "female" roles to carry this lust forward. The same appropriation of female beauty and attractiveness manifests itself in some aspects of the "transgender" equation.

The "alt-right" online part of the equation, enables a powerless white lamer in real life, to be a virtual giant in the virtual world, terrorizing and shocking resented females and "normies" and fulfilling an otherwise limited moral existence with a noble mission in company with similar comrades- to be guardian and protector of white civilization itself. Ironically, the very behavior of many "defenders of white civ" seems rather to undermine many aspects - from their deep dependence on and obsession with pornography, constant disparagement of women, and continual mocking of "weakling" family values, brotherhood, do-unto-others-as-yourself kindness to others, fair treatment and justice and so on, espoused by many Christians. All such is for "the weak." As the discerning reader will note- their "defense of civ" approach has a familiar 1930s and 40s echo to it..

And there is a neat racial tie-in both ways. The latent fear of monstrous negro penetration lurks in the dark background, related the persistence of the bestial negro or "black thug" stock figures exploited in manufactured fantasy, and today's relentless pornography. With this one can add the fear and envy of negro sexual prowess and perceived "cool" (such as among athletes and musicians) on the front end. On another level, one can throw in personal repugnance against an "other" that does not meet white ideals of beauty -see black lesbian complaints of being devalued, discounted or ignored even as far as service in public establishments- here for example. Stir the toxic stew, and the path of racial antipathy is wide open, and easy to take for those white gays and lesbians moving to the "alt side." The alt-right transition combines all these strands, some contradictory, and gives plenty of scope to attack the resented/envied/feared/scorned black Other. Again the above is dealing with SOME POSSIBLE items in the mix for the shift towards the alt-right. It offers no grand explanation of the motivations and activities of all individuals.

4) Can the misogyny of many on the alt-right serve as an effective two-way recruiting tool- (a) into the alt-right, and (b) into the gay lifestyle at the same time? First, the misogyny of many in the alt-right is well documented and might have practical benefits across the board. It can help recruit gays into the alt-right, and indeed the alt-right's one-time most famous spokesman, Milo Yiannopoulos heaped scorn on women, and of course, is himself gay. Add in the others mentioned in the Slate article, and this might be a powerful draw, just as the anti-female angle draws other young white males into the movement who are not as yet gay. Second, as the misogyny machine grinds on, new queer recruitment avenues open up, as crowds of resentful young white males, unable to get the female objects of their desire, are invited to become that lust: the disguises vary - transgenderism, transvestitism, or "switch" role-playing, where they can both be the feminine object, or the masculine dominator of that object. The relentless presence of pornography meshes with the grist of the misogynist mills, and helps along the process, possibly luring more and more young white males to move to, or tentatively "experiment" on the slippery slope of the queer side. And none of the above need be a binary homosexual versus non homosexual model. The "transition" process is more effective if it works undercover, in different guises, along a continuum of corruption. Sounds like a very favorable environment in many ways eh?

5) Finally in the hoped for gay white nationalist "autonomous zones" nirvana above, white women would seem to be second-class citizens with very little power, except as fulfilling the roles they are ordered to take. It seems though, that the designers of this affluent racial paradise forgot about gay women, who I don't think will be content with being mere "Aryan" handmaids, like the idealized passive Frau of the Third Reich, minus the breeding responsibilities.. Since they cannot be expected (at least in theory) to be strength-through-joy breeding machines, what's in it for white gay women, or gay white feminists except the initial racial bashing/black devaluation angle as they stand by their righteously racist "alt-right" man? Also will there be a place for the "effete" elements in the "new order"- those "pink-haired, punk rock stepchildren of feminism" per above?

Sunday, July 30, 2017

It has become an article of faith in some quarters that racial discrimination in employment, housing and consumer markets was eliminated or has been/was massively reduced by passage of such laws as the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Any remaining discrimination is actually "reverse discrimination" against white men and womenvia "affirmative action (AA) quotas", who have been wrongly made to feel "white guilt" about things they had nothing to do with. And if perchance racial discrimination is found, why its of minor consequence, and perfectly rational given bad black culture, genetics and so on- the "rational racism"defense. All of the above are dubious and have been debunked a number of times on this blog, as shown by the links above. But what about the actual hard data on racial discrimination today in employment, housing and consumer markets? Part 1 of our exploration looks at scholarly data, not random rants and fulminations off the web. Here is an excerpt from Pager and Shepard, two college professors (Pager and Shepard. 2008. The sociology of discrimination- Racial discrimination in employment, housing, credit, consumer markets, Annu. Rev. Sociol 2008. 34:181–209) Part 2 of the discussion looks at some conservative and libertarian responses.

QUOTE:

"Employment

"Although there have been some remarkable gains in the labor force status of racial minorities, significant disparities remain. African Americans are twice as likely to be unemployed as whites (Hispanics are only marginally so), and the wages of both blacks and Hispanics continue to lag well behind those of whites (author’s analysis of Current Population Survey, 2006). A long line of research has examined the degree to which discrimination plays a role in shaping contemporary labor market disparities. Experimental audit studies focusing on hiring decisions have consistently found strong evidence of racial discrimination, with estimates of white preference ranging from 50% to 240% (Cross et al. 1989, Turner et al. 1991, Fix & Struyk 1993, Bendick et al. 1994; see Pager 2007a for a review). For example, in a study by Bertrand & Mullainathan (2004), the researchers mailed equivalent resumes to employers in Boston and Chicago using racially identifiable names to signal race (for example, names like Jamal and Lakisha signaled African Americans, while Brad and Emily were associated with whites).2 White names triggered a callback rate that was 50% higher than that of equally qualified black applicants. Further, their study indicated that improving the qualifications of applicants benefited white applicants but not blacks, thus leading to a wider racial gap in response rates for those with higher skill. Statistical studies of employment outcomes likewise reveal large racial disparities unaccounted for by observed human capital characteristics.

Tomaskovic-Devey et al. (2005) present evidence from a fixed-effects model indicating that black men spend significantly more time searching for work, acquire less work experience, and experience less stable employment than do whites with otherwise equivalent characteristics. Wilson et al. (1995) find that, controlling for age, education, urban location, and occupation, black male high school graduates are 70% more likely to experience involuntary unemployment than whites with similar characteristics and that this disparity increases among those with higher levels of education. At more aggregate levels, research points to the persistence of occupational segregation, with racial minorities concentrated in jobs with lower levels of stability and authority and with fewer opportunities for advancement (Parcel & Mueller 1983, Smith 2002). Of course, these residual estimates cannot control for all relevant factors, such as motivation, effort, access to useful social networks, and other factors that may produce disparities in the absence of direct discrimination. Nevertheless, these estimates suggest that blacks and whites with observably similar human capital characteristics experience markedly different employment outcomes.."

--snip--

QUOTE:"Housing

Residential segregation by race remains a salient feature of contemporary American cities. Indeed, African Americans were as segregated from whites in 1990 as they had been at the start of the twentieth century, and levels of segregation appear unaffected by rising socioeconomic status (Massey & Denton 1993). Although segregation appears to have modestly decreased between 1980 and 2000 (Logan et al. 2004), blacks (and to a lesser extent other minority groups) continue to experience patterns of residential placement markedly different from whites. The degree to which discrimination contributes to racial disparities in housing has been a major preoccupation of social scientists and federal housing agents (Charles 2003).

The study results reveal bias across multiple dimensions, with blacks experiencing consistent adverse treatment in roughly one in five housing searches and Hispanics experiencing consistent adverse treatment in roughly one out of four housing searches (both rental and sales).3 Measured discrimination took the form of less information offered about units, fewer opportunities to view units, and, in the case of home buyers, less assistance with financing and steering into less wealthy communities and neighborhoods with a higher proportion of minority residents.

Generally, the results of the 2000 Housing Discrimination Study indicate that aggregate levels of discrimination against blacks declined modestly in both rentals and sales since 1989 (although levels of racial steering increased). Discrimination against Hispanics in housing sales declined, although Hispanics experienced increasing levels of discrimination in rental markets.

Other research using telephone audits further points to a gender and class dimension of racial discrimination in which black women and/or blacks who speak in a manner associated with a lower-class upbringing suffer greater discrimination than black men and/or those signaling a middle-class upbringing (Massey & Lundy 2001, Purnell et al. 1999). Context also matters in the distribution of discrimination events (Fischer & Massey 2004). Turner & Ross (2005) report that segregation and class steering of blacks occurs most often when either the housing or the office of the real estate agent is in a predominantly white neighborhood. Multi-city audits likewise suggest that the incidence of discrimination varies substantially across metropolitan contexts (Turner et al. 2002).

Moving beyond evidence of exclusionary treatment, Roscigno and colleagues (2007) provide evidence of the various forms of housing discrimination that can extend well beyond the point of purchase (or rental agreement). Examples from a sample of discrimination claims filed with the Civil Rights Commission of Ohio point to the failure of landlords to provide adequate maintenance for housing units, to harassment or physical threats by managers or neighbors, and to the unequal enforcement of a residential association’s rules. Overall, the available evidence suggests that discrimination in rental and housing markets remains pervasive. Although there are some promising signs of change, the frequency with which racial minorities experience differential treatment in housing searches suggests that discrimination remains an important barrier to residential opportunities."--snip--

QUOTE:"Credit Markets

Whites possess roughly 12 times the wealth of African Americans; in fact, whites near the bottom of the income distribution possess more wealth than blacks near the top of the income distribution (Oliver & Shapiro 1997, p. 86). Given that home ownership is one of the most significant sources of wealth accumulation, patterns that affect the value and viability of home ownership will have an impact on wealth disparities overall. Accordingly, the majority of work on discrimination in credit markets focuses on the specific case of mortgages. Available evidence suggests that blacks and Hispanics face higher rejection rates and less favorable terms in securing mortgages than do whites with similar credit characteristics (Ross & Yinger 1999). Oliver & Shapiro (1997, p. 142) report that blacks pay more than 0.5% higher interest rates on home mortgages than do whites and that this difference persists with controls for income level, date of purchase, and age of buyer.

The most prominent study of the effect of race on rejection rates for mortgage loans is by Munnell et al. (1996), which uses 1991 Home Mortgage Disclosure Act data supplemented by data from the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, including individual applicants’ financial, employment, and property background variables that lenders use to calculate the applicants’ probability of default. Accounting for a range of variables linked to risk of default, cost of default, loan characteristics, and personal and neighborhood characteristics, they find that black and Hispanic applications were 82% more likely to be rejected than were those from similar whites. Critics argued that the study was flawed on the basis of the quality of the data collected (Horne 1994), model specification problems (Glennon & Stengel 1994), omitted variables (Zandi 1993, Liebowitz 1993, Horne 1994, Day & Liebowitz 1996), and endogenous explanatory variables (see Ross&Yinger 1999 for a full explication of the opposition), although rejoinders suggest that the race results are affected little by these modifications (Ross & Yinger 1999; S.L. Ross&G.M.B.Tootell, unpublished manuscript).

Audit research corroborates evidence of mortgage discrimination, finding that black testers are less likely to receive a quote for a loan than are white testers and that they are given less time with the loan officer, are quoted higher interest rates, and are given less coaching and less information than are comparable white applicants (for a review, see Ross&Yinger 2002).

In addition to investigating the race of the applicant, researchers have investigated the extent to which the race of the neighborhood affects lending decisions, otherwise known as redlining. Although redlining is a well-documented factor in the origins of contemporary racial residential segregation (see Massey & Denton 1993), studies after the 1974 Equal Credit Opportunity Act, which outlawed redlining, and since the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act, which made illegal having a smaller pool of mortgage funds available in minority neighborhoods than in similar white neighborhoods, find little evidence of its persistence (Benston & Horsky 1991, Schafer & Ladd 1981, Munnell et al. 1996). This conclusion depends in part, however, on one’s definition of neighborhood-based discrimination. Ross & Yinger (1999) distinguish between process-based and outcomebased redlining, with process-based redlining referring to “whether the probability that a loan application is denied is higher in minority neighborhoods than in white neighborhoods, all else equal” whereas outcome-based redlining refers to smaller amounts of mortgage funding available to minority neighborhoods relative to comparable white neighborhoods. Although evidence on both types of redlining is mixed, several studies indicate that, controlling for demand, poor and/or minority neighborhoods have reduced access to mortgage funding, particularly from mainstream lenders (Phillips-Patrick & Rossi 1996, Siskin & Cupingood 1996; see also Ladd 1998 for methodological issues in measuring redlining).

As a final concern, competition and deregulation of the banking industry have led to greater variability in conditions of loans, prompting the label of the “new inequality” in lending (Williams et al. 2005, Holloway 1998). Rather than focusing on rejection rates, these researchers focus on the terms and conditions of loans, in particular whether a loan is favorable or subprime (Williams et al. 2005, Apgar & Calder 2005, Squires 2003). Immergluck & Wiles (1999) have called this the “dual mortgage market” in which prime lending is given to higher income and white areas, while subprime and predatory lending is concentrated in lower-income and minority communities (see also Dymski 2006, pp. 232–36). Williams et al. (2005), examining changes between 1993 and 2000, find rapid gains in loans to underserved markets from specialized lenders: 78% of the increase in lending to minority neighborhoods was from subprime lenders, and 72% of the increase in refinance lending to blacks was from subprime lenders. Further, the authors find that “even at the highest income level, blacks are almost three times as likely to get their loans from a subprime lender as are others” (p. 197; see also Calem et al. 2004). Although the disproportionate rise of subprime lending in minority communities is not solely the result of discrimination, some evidence suggests that in certain cases explicit racial targeting may be at work. In two audit studies in which creditworthy testers approached subprime lenders, whites were more likely to be referred to the lenders’ prime borrowing division than were similar black applicants (see Williams et al. 2005). Further, subprime lenders quoted the black applicants very high rates, fees, and closing costs that were not correlated with risk (Williams et al. 2005).4

Not all evidence associated with credit market discrimination is bad news. Indeed, between 1989 and 2000 the number of mortgage loans to blacks and Hispanics nationwide increased 60%, compared with 16% for whites, suggesting that some convergence is taking place (Turner et al. 2002). Nevertheless, the evidence indicates that blacks and Hispanics continue to face higher rejection rates and receive less favorable terms than whites of equal credit risk."

--snip--

Pager and Shepard have much more to discuss, including consumer credit discrimination, but you get the picture from the snippets above, which many seem intent on denying, or minimizing - namely, that racial discrimination in employment, housing and credit markets is alive and well.

Pager and Shepard also note the continuing impact of white preferential "word of mouth" and other social networks, and the continuing effect of past discrimination in suppressing black opportunity, wealth and other things. This past cannot be simply airbrushed away as a factor in the current era. Quote:

"Indeed, many organizational policies or procedures can impose disparate impact along racial lines with little direct influence from individual decision makers. The case of networks represents one important example... given high levels of social segregation (e.g., McPherson et al. 2001), the use of referrals is likely to reproduce the existing racial composition of the company and to exclude members of those groups not already well represented (Braddock & McPartland 1987). In an analysis of noncollege jobs, controlling for spatial segregation, occupational segregation, city, and firm size, Mouw (2002) finds that the use of employee referrals in predominantly white firms reduces the probability of a black hire by nearly 75% relative to the use of newspaper ads."

"The origins of contemporary racial wealth disparities, for example, have well-established links to historical practices of redlining, housing covenants, racially targeted federal housing policies, and other forms of active discrimination within housing and lending markets (e.g., Massey & Denton 1993). Setting aside evidence of continuing discrimination in each of these domains, these historical practices themselves are sufficient to maintain extraordinarily high levels of wealth inequality through the intergenerational transition of advantage (the ability to invest in good neighborhoods, good schools, college, housing assistance for adult children, etc.) (Oliver & Shapiro 1997). According to Conley (1999), even if we were to eliminate all contemporary forms of discrimination, huge racial wealth disparities would persist, which in turn underlie racial inequalities in schooling, employment, and other social domains (see also Lieberson & Fuguitt 1967). Recent work based on formal modeling suggests that the effects of past discrimination, particularly as mediated by ongoing forms of social segregation, are likely to persist well into the future, even in the absence of ongoing discrimination (see Bowles et al. 2007, Lundberg & Startz 1998). These historical sources of discrimination may become further relevant, not only in their perpetuation of present-day inequalities, but also through their reinforcement of contemporary forms of stereotypes and discrimination."
--Pager and Shepard. 2008. Sociology of Discrimination. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008.34:181-209.

Cumulative effects of discrimination and ostensible "race neutrality." Supposedly "race neutral" policies or practices may also perpetuate effects of discrimination by locking in the privileges and advantages gained from past discrimination. Barring blacks from decent housing markets and land purchases for generations for example, locks in the advantages gained by whites over those generations, and will produce people substantially locked out of the major source of wealth in the United States- home ownership, or out of jobs that are much easer to find, and to get to from once "off limits" white suburban locations. Discrimination can have accumulative effects. For example routing women to certain jobs at career entry will produce disparities in pay, promotions, income etc, years later down the road. Passage of a few laws, or declarations of a level playing field, will not magically erase these cumulative effects- some built up over generations. As Pager and Shepard further note:QUOTE:"These examples point to contexts in which ostensibly race-neutral policies can structure and reinforce existing social inequalities. According to Omi & Winant (1994), “through policies which are explicitly or implicitly racial, state institutions organize and enforce the racial politics of everyday life. For example, they enforce racial (non)discrimination policies, which they administer, arbitrate, and encode in law. They organize racial identities by means of education, family law, and the procedures for punishment, treatment, and surveillance of the criminal, deviant and ill” (p. 83). Even without any willful intent, policies can play an active role in designating the beneficiaries and victims of a particular system of resource allocation, with important implications for enduring racial inequalities.

Accumulation of disadvantage. This third category of structural discrimination draws our attention to how the effects of discrimination in one domain or at one point in time may have consequences for a broader range of outcomes. Through spillover effects across domains, processes of cumulative (dis)advantage across the life course, and feedback effects, the effects of 9The case of drug policy and enforcement is one area for which evidence of direct racial discrimination is stronger (see Beckett et al. 2005, Tonry 1995). discrimination can intensify and, in some cases, become self-sustaining. Although traditional measures of discrimination focus on individual decision points (e.g., the decision to hire, to rent, to offer a loan), the effects of these decisions may extend into other relevant domains. Discrimination in credit markets, for example, contributes to higher rates of loan default, with negative implications for minority entrepreneurship, home ownership, and wealth accumulation (Oliver & Shapiro 1997). Discrimination in housing markets contributes to residential segregation, which is associated with concentrated disadvantage (Massey & Denton 1993), poor health outcomes ( Williams 2004), and limited educational and employment opportunities (Massey & Fischer 2006, Fernandez & Su 2004).

Single point estimates of discrimination within a particular domain may substantially underestimate the cumulative effects of discrimination over time and the ways in which discrimination in one domain can trigger disadvantage in many others. In addition to linkages across domains, the effects of discrimination may likewise span forward in time, with the cumulative impact of discrimination magnifying initial effects. Blau & Ferber (1987), for example, point to how the channeling of men and women into different job types at career entry “will virtually ensure sex differences in productivity, promotion opportunities, and pay” (p. 51). Small differences in starting points can have large effects over the life course (and across generations), even in the absence of continuing discrimination [for a rich discussion of cumulative (dis)advantage, see DiPrete & Eirich (2006)]."
--Pager and Shepard. 2008. Sociology of Discrimination. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2008.34:181-209.

Other data- employment- "Black sounding" names need not apply:
One study by economists at MIT found that even when
job applicants are equally qualified in terms of experience and education,
applicants with white-sounding names are 50 percent more likely than those with
black-sounding names to get a callback for an interview. Another found that
white male job applicants with criminal records are more likely to get called
back for an interview than black men without one, even when all other
qualifications are indistinguishable. Even more depressing ,the study fond that the prospective "black" applicants had to have EIGHT ADDITIONAL YEARS OF EXPERIENCE to get the same number of job callbacks as the prospective "white "candidate. The higher the quality of the resume, the stronger the racial bias became. As scholars of the study note: QUOTE:

"We study race in the labor market by sending fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perceived race, resumes are randomly assigned African-American-or White-sounding names. White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. Callbacks are also more responsive to resume quality for White names than for African-American ones. The racial gap is uniform across occupation, industry, and employer size. We also find little evidence that employers are inferring social class from the names. Differential treatment by race still appears to still be prominent in the U.S. labor market."

-- Bertrand and Mullalinathan 2004. Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? American Economic Review. Sept 2004- 991-1013

QUOTE:

"Research buttresses this evidence of wage discrimination with findings of significant race- and gender-based discrimination in hiring... a multi-year, national study on race and sex discrimination in large and midsized private businesses found that intentional discrimination exists in every region of the country and in each of nine occupational categories ...” (Blumrosen and Blumrosen 2002). Even as recently as this year [2012], the U.S. Department of Labor Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs found that FedEx engaged in discrimination against 21,000 applicants in 15 states (U.S. Department of Labor 2012). In short, although the American ideal may be to judge individuals by the content of their character, we have not yet guaranteed equal opportunity in all cases."

"Controlled experiments, using matched pairs of bogus transactors, to test for discrimination in the marketplace have been conducted for over 30 years, and have extended across 10 countries. Significant, persistent and pervasive levels of discrimination have been found against non-whites and women in labour, housing and product markets. Rates of employment discrimination against non-whites, in excess of 25% have been measured in Australia, Europe and North America. "
-- Riach and Rich 2002. Field Experiments of Discrimination in the Market Place. The Economic JournalVolume 112, Issue 483, pages F480–F518.

Does this mean that racial discrimination, past and present, is the ONLY factor at play in a given situation? Not at all, and few credible scholars or journalists are "ignoring" other factors, as the standard strawman and denialist party line claims. Part 2 of our topic or post will looks at some conservative responses- in particular a tendency to mysteriously skip over the reality of discrimination, or the efficacy of the Civil Rights era in combating such discrimination. Conservative responses it should be noted does not necessarily equate with members of the Republican Party, as the many racist, racialist or denialist responses from people self-identifying as Democrats illustrates. Richard Nixon's famous "Philadelphia Plan" in the 1970s heavily affected mostly Democrat-voting unions for example, who freely discriminated against blacks, and likewise, ML King found some of his strongest opposition in the North from white Democrats in "liberal" Chicago and elsewhere..

A pattern of strangely missing analysis and data shows up in discussions of discrimination by libertarians and conservatives. One prominent example is Thomas Sowell in his recent books Intellectuals and Race (2013) and Wealth and Poverty: An International Perspective. He frames a good part of his discussion of discrimination for example to say that race may not be the only factor that causes discrimination, and gives several factors. But is this blinding insight anything new? What serious analysts for example, "ignore" the fact, that say, people in urban areas, generally make higher wages than people in rural areas? Yes people vary for different causes, but that does not mean racial discrimination is absent, or that it is insignificant, nor does it mean that claimants to racial discrimination have no burden of proof on their shoulders- far from it- they carry a heavy burden. Sowell, like some other libertarians and conservatives, also has little in the book to say about the impact of the Civil Rights Act of 1964- an interesting omission since a number of conservative public intellectuals like Dinesh D'souzaattempt to poo-poo the Civil Rights Act of 1964, want to repeal it, or attempt to dismiss its importance by claiming it has been rendered "null" or ineffective because (a) blacks are "disillusioned" because instant racial nirvana did not happen, or (b) liberals "abandoned" color blindness in favor of "quotas and collectivism", or that (c) private individuals or companies were wrongly targeted for anti-discrimination measures rather than government (D'souza- The End of Racism: 170-184). Some of the same arguments are made by white racialist hereditarian Jared Taylor in his numerous writings such as the book "White Identity."

But such claims are dubious as detailed in previous posts. Few blacks expected any instant racial nirvana. In media interviews for example, even the prototypical progressive "dreamer" Martin Luther King struck a note of grim realism at the slow pace of change in the face of white resistance- noting that mere passage of laws would not win all battles. Said King, it was relatively easy for white America to allow desegregated restaurant or bus seating, (after well nigh a decade of turmoil and struggle), but when it came to core issues that govern wealth, poverty, housing, jobs, schools, access to opportunity etc, white America, was not in a hurry. King came to realize that his "I have a Dream" speech served white America well, with its optimistic gloss. The Kennedy Administration loved it. And it played well to international audiences who wondered about white America's claims to moral leadership and democracy, while a significant slice of Americans who happened to be black, could get neither democracy or fair treatment. But behind the flowery phrases, grim struggle remained. King is worth quoting:

"I must confess that, uh, that dream that I had that day has in many points turned into a nightmare. Now I’m not one to lose hope; I keep on hoping. I still have faith in the future. But I’ve had to analyze many things over the last few years and I would say over the last few months I’ve gone through a lot of soul-searching and agonizing moments and I’ve come to see that, uh, that we have many more difficult days ahead and some of the old optimism was a little bit superficial.. I think that the biggest problem now is that we got our gains over the last 12 years at bargain rates, so to speak. It didn’t cost the nation anything.. but we can’t get rid of slums and poverty without it costing the nation something." --(Martin Luther King, Jr. interview by Sander Vanocur- NBC - 1967 - https://mackenzian.com/blog/2014/09/29/transcript-realism-and-nonviolence)

But for all that, Black Americans overwhelmingly welcomed the protections and relief gained by the "big three" of civil rights- The Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Civil Rights-Open Housing law of 1968. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the most prominent, and blacks and progressive whites, including independent thinking conservatives, embraced it. Contrary to claims of racialist hereditarians, for blacks desegregation was not a "problem" or "failure", but rather often HOW desegregation was implemented by whites in certain areas- such as malicious white closing of good black schools and firing of black teachers, coaches and administrators. And while there have been some abuses, the post civil rights era is not simply a question of "liberals" "abandoning" "colorblindness" as right wing spin like that put forth by Shelby Steele would have it. For one thing, it took years of hard litigation, political lobbying and voting, administrative arm-twisting (such as threatening to withhold federal funds from Jim Crow hospitals) and even follow-up street protests to make good the "colorblind" provisions of the CRA, and such years saw stubborn battles by many whites to delay or nullify those provisions. It was those stubborn battles that forced the use of things like affirmative action by courts, and even exasperated Republican presidents. The notion that all was suddenly "colorblind" on the part of white America after 1964 is cynical deception and propaganda.

Furthermore announcing "colorblindness" meant little when years of embedded an consolidated white advantage, oft built unfairly at the expense of blacks, was simply entrenched and left in place. For example telling black railroad workers held back for years that - "oh, we are now colorblind. We have shifted the goalposts by the way, so remain in your lower level slots as you have for years, and one day you may be moved up without regard to color," is a rather hollow "victory" for "colorblindness." As shown in the Griggs case, it was only after civil rights legislation was passed that the white employer suddenly found "colorblind religion," and then it cunningly moved to still entrench white advantage, by grandfathering white incumbents into the slots they had enjoyed for years while freezing out black workers. CRA enforcement efforts sought and gained TANGIBLE relief for those long mistreated workers. In short enforcement in the name of colorblindness, required tangible results, not mere platitudes.

This is nothing unusual, nor is it an argument for unfettered head count quotas far removed from those who have suffered discrimination directly. White union members gained tangible relief- such as reinstatement or promotion when discrimination on the basis of union membership was made illegal. Its only when a black man shows up looking for the same, that some right-wingers, and liberals, suddenly discover the noble rhetoric of "colorblindness." Indeed as credible historians show (see Taylor Branch's Trilogy on the Civil Rights years such as "At Canaan's Edge for example) "colorblindness" rhetoric was an explicit strategy used by segregationists to continue business as usual and route blacks to the back of the opportunity
line- chiefly by locking in years of white advantage, while mouthing soothing platitudes about "race neutrality" or "we don't see color." See discussions of court case, Griggs vs Duke for example in previous posts.

Sacred private cows: Ironically, popular libertarian and right wing intellectuals and pundits like Dinesh D'souza, while mouthing platitudes about colorblindness, would actually REPEAL the Civil Rights Act of 1964- QUOTE: "Am I calling for a repeal of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Actually, yes. The law should be changed so that its nondiscrimination provisions apply only to government." (Dsouza, 1996. The End of Racism, p 544). Black women thrown off private buses for sitting in the "wrong" seat? Shrug.. Its private, so all is OK. Black railroadmen murdered for working at the "wrong" "white only" jobs at private employer? Oh well, too bad.. let the negroes find jobs at other private employers- why worry about it? This would still be America for blacks if D'souza's "colorblind" model is followed. "Mere" private discrimination also has damaging spillover effects. Sending black people to the back of the bus for example or excluding them from restaurants sends a message that blacks are not worthy of citizenship- stoking a poisonous resentment and bitterness that still has not dissipated in America. Black troops during WW2 for example, sometimes watched in astonishment as German POWs, fresh off battlefields killing American troops, were allowed access to restaurants, facilities, stores etc that excluded US citizens, who happened to be black. And such treatment on into the Cold War era had a negative impact on US credibility and foreign policy during the 1950s ad 1960, as credible scholars show. See Mary Dudziak's book- Cold War Civil Rights (2000).

But this was not merely a "feeling." Black women for example were routinely insulted, manhandled and mistreated on transportation in many parts of America. It is no accident that the arrest of Claudette Colvin and more particularly Rosa Parks, (both women) sparked the famous Montgomery Bus Boycott, culmination of years of resentment. And the same city buses that served a mostly black ridership did not hire black bus drivers. In his biography, Thomas Sowell, who spent most of his life safely up north beginning as a teenager when he moved there, ducks and avoids substantive discussion of such grim realities of segregation by trying to portray segregation as mostly a matter of avoiding "restaurants run by rednecks" - a variant of the poo-poo approach used by many white libertarians. But it was a lot more than "mere" inconvenience, of ill-treatment and insult. On the housing front, routing blacks to the worse properties means that they do not have access to good schools, good jobs located in the suburbs, and have less chance to acquire the major source of wealth in contemporary America- home ownership. It also means blacks will pay higher prices for things like substandard housing, a fact exploited by whites in creating systems of housing segregation, many of them deliberately constructed, as Richard Rothstein documents in his book The Color of Law (2017)

And unlike the misinformed (or deceptive) D'souza's claim, private individuals and entities were not the "wrong target" of civil rights enforcement or activism. While millions of private entities may have more flexibility in discrimination, because of their sheer number (compared to governments), they also represent among the severest and most pernicious agents in America's racial apartheid system. In fact, PRIVATE individuals and entities constantly invoked and used the power of government, to carry out THEIR private discriminatory agendas. In the brutal realities of race, government agency and action are not only captured by private interests, but at times are often indistinguishable. The notion that "private" discrimination is somehow OK and that it can be separated from similar government action is not only laughably naive on the part of some, but cynically deceptive as well, on the part of others. Examples are legion- from white unions that used government power to sandbag blacks in poorly paying "negro jobs," to the kangaroo courts and corrupt law enforcement that railroaded thousands of black men and women on bogus or trumped up charges- who were then "leased out" to private employers in a system of semi-slavery for decades. In terms of civil rights however, it made little difference. Both government AND private entities worked hand in hand to oppress and discriminate- BOTH had to be tackled. The notion that private discrimination should be left alone, and only government touched is sheer nonsense, not only as far as principle, but because private entities were/are the BIGGEST agents of discrimination in aggregate, and far from being distant from government, were and are the most vocal advocates of insisting that government discriminate on THEIR BEHALF.

The fact that some right wing conservatives like D'souza would exempt private discriminators, shows their true colors. ML King's famous Birmingham Campaign etc, was targeted heavily against PRIVATE entities for very good reasons. Furthermore, when government actually mandated non-discriminatory "colorblindness," it is precisely numerous PRIVATE individuals or entities that rejected any such government action. The private people wanted to CONTINUE discriminating. In the North for example, state level civil rights laws were routinely flouted in education, private housing, and accommodations and services by private entities who were licensed to supposedly serve the general public. Books such as Martha Biondi's To Stand and Fight:The Struggle for Civil Rights in New York (2003) detail the sometimes dismal picture in the supposedly more "liberal" North. In the South, segregationists supported NON colorblindness, precisely on the basis of PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS, to discriminate, and routinely claimed government could and should do nothing about segregation because it was PRIVATE parties who discriminated. Private white parties said: "We private people can't do anything about discrimination- its up to government." On the other side of the cynical endless loop, government parties could say, "we can't do anything about discrimination because its private." It was a perfect circular reasoning tactic, and classic excuse of whites for doing nothing about America's apartheid state. In the meantime, America's image took severe damage overseas because of that apartheid state, and poisonous spillover effects festered internally to be manifested over generations. So where does the facile D'souza get his claim about "wrongly" targeting private parties for civil rights enforcement or activism? Stifle laughter...

The missing Civil Rights Act.
As noted above re his books, libertarian author Thomas Sowell has been often critical of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nothing wrong with a critique but Sowell's problem is that he often delivers a distorted critique- setting up false premises that can then be "rebutted" later. His biography lays out his reasoning as follows:

"These were historic times for civil rights and for racial issues in general. While I welcomed the dismantling of the old Jim Crow laws in the South, I was increasingly disenchanted with the Utopianism which I had first noted back on the day when the Supreme Court announced its decision in Brown v. Board of Education.The idea seemed to be that white people’s sins were all that stood between us and economic and social parity throughout American society. The enormous amount of internal change needed within the black community—in education, skills and attitudes—seemed wholly un-noticed, as people rhapsodized about the brave new world to come, if and when white people became less sinful, courtesy of the federal government. Neither whites nor blacks had run out of room for improvement, but I expected no dramatic change in the relative economic positions of the races as a result of civil rights laws.Civil rights were important in and of themselves, and we should have equality before the law as a matter of justice."But to expect civil rights to solve our economic and social problems was barking up the wrong tree, it seemed to me. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 became a big political issue, my hope was that it would pass without any crippling amendments, not only for its own sake, but also in order that we could turn our attention away from such distractions and toward our own self-development as a people. In February 1964, I wrote to a friend: 'Perhaps if the omnibus civil rights bill goes through Congress undiluted, the bitter anti-climax that is sure to follow may provoke some real thought in quarters where slogans and labels hold sway at the moment.'Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 wrought dramatic legal and political changes across the South, its economic consequences were in fact a bitter anti-climax. Economic progress continued, but at no faster pace than in the past. Additional blacks entered professional and other high-level positions in the five years following passage of the Civil Rights Act—but these additions were fewer than in the five years preceding passage of the Act. "
--Sowell, A Personal Odyssey p 268-269

The above has the makings arguably, of a reasonable conservative critique of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, except for the distortions. Four points come to mind:

1) For one thing, most blacks had no "utopian" illusions that the mere passage of the bill would erase centuries of disadvantage and/or Jim Crow. In fact even ML King had no such illusions. To be sure, somewhere among some 20-25 million blacks there were some "utopianists" but both "responsible" civil rights leadership and surging "black nationalists" saw passage of the bill as only on step in a long process tht had much more struggle to come. Neither Malcolm X (who mocked the bill as a fraud given whirte America's racism) or Stokely Carmichael are on record with any "utopian" visions, nor are people like towering NAACP leader Roy Wilkins. See also the interview with ML King quoted above in 1967 above.

2) The second distortion is Sowell's progress indicators. He says he expected no dramatic change in the relative economic position between blacks and whites as a result of the Act. OK, but who credible expected that massive economic advantages accrued by whites over blacks during 200 years of slavery and 100 years of Jim Crow would be magically erased by a law on paper 1964? As already shown above, few credible civil rights leader, or competing black nationalist/militant leader, or even most ordinary black citizens on the street held such notions.

3) Sowell then tries a 3rd distortion, claiming "bitter" economic consequences after the Act, that whatever legal or political changes gained, would yield only "bitter" economic fruit. His supporting data is to say that blacks entering managerial and professional occupations were less in the 5 years after the Act than before. But this too like his other reasoning is dubious. Far from yielding "bitter" fruit, the Civil Rights Act can be credited with rather beautiful blooms as huge swathes of opportunities were opened up for blacks. See the hard data below by Gavin Wright and others for example, particularly in the South, refuting Sowell's attempt to confine Civil rights progress to only the legal and political spheres. Much of this hard data was around at the time or before Sowell's book, so he has no excuse for not dealing with it, except, in an all too common pattern, he avoid evidence contrary to his theme, or resorts to cherry picked factoids or anecdotes-sme of only limited relevance, scope or context.

It is also curious that Sowell chooses such a short time period to measure his alleged "bitter" fruit. His standard pattern is again revealing- he cherry picks his method of measuring the impact of the Civil Rights Act- making comparisons to 5 years before, with five years after. But why a mere 5 years before/after comparison given 100 years of Jim Crow? So in 5 years, the massive black disadvantages in education, employment etc imposed by whites was supposed to magically disappear? How is that even remotely supposed to be possible in the real world? Here again is the distorted strawman aspect of Sowell's work. By selecting a crude and short 5 year "before and after" comparison, the progress made can be obfuscated and downplayed, which works about to about the same thing Sowell criticizes civil rights boosters of doing. But some of the data in Sowell's own work debunks his argument. For example in an earlier work- his book Civil Rights, Rhetoric or Reality, he points out that single continuously working black women had achieved wage parity with white women by 1969. How would this be possible under his alleged "bitter" fruit scenario of empty gains?

And assuming his before/after comparison is correct, there were a number of factors that pulled black men out of the immediate workforce in the five years directly after the law, such as the Vietnam War which in the main began in 1965 for the US. But what about those black men leaving the Vietnam era army AFTER 1965 with their GI Bil education benefits, and VA housing loan benefits (still dogged by the discriminatory "redlining" policies of the federal government) in hand who began a new working life? Five years after 1964 is not enough time to fairly gauge how they fared in moving up into professional jobs given that such jobs need years of experience. In fact, a black veteran taking 3-4 years out of the workforce to use his GI Bill benefits to get that education would NOT be counted in Sowell's magical professionals/high level category. One can see the disingenuous of Sowell' selection of a 5-year "after" comparison- by choosing 5 years he can, again obfuscate and downplay the progress made.

4) Finally, Sowell is just plain wrong when how says that economic progress proceeded at no faster pace as in the past. Numerous credible scholars debunk this assertion as detailed below. Indeed it is only by using the distorted "5-year comparison" that Sowell can support his shaky assertion. Some right-wingers have attempted to extend a simplistic "before/after" model into the 1970s, but the 1970s were a time of GENERAL economic decline, recession and stagflation- hence of course after booming 1960s a "decline" would set in, but this was a GENERAL economic decline for the ENTIRE economy not any "bitter" fruit of the Civil Rights Act. Let''s look at hard, detailed evidence rather than simplistic, cherry-picked methods.

Civil Rights Laws had nationwide impact, but most significant, was their impact where discrimination was most severe- that is, the South. Sowell, who so often comes up with the most obscure factoids (such as suicide rates of Chinese in 1800s Cuba), carefully avoids even a basic regional comparison. However, data by credible scholars in fact does show that in the South, the coming of the Civil Rights Era and its forcing open of basic equal access and treatment, measurably improved black employment, income, and other crucial life variables like health. "Heckman and Payner (1989) use microdata from textile plants in South Carolina to study the effects of race on employment between 1940 and 1980, concluding that federal antidiscrimination policy resulted in a significant improvement in black economic status between 1965 and 1975." (Pager and Shepard 2008) Likewise detailed data such as Gavin Wright's Sharing the Prize (2013) illustrate the same point of significant black gains under after Civil Rights Laws, not only for things like employment, but in educational attainment, occupational status and even health. The forcing open of Jim Crow southern hospitals (through threat of withholding federal funds) for example was a boon to black health. See Gavin Wright's- Sharing the Prize for more detail.

"(1) Relative demand for and income of black workers were raised in the postwar period by governmental and private antidiscrimination activity following the 1964 Civil Rights Act and possibly by a general societal decline in individual and market purchases of discrimination relative to levels of productivity.

(2) The black occupational distribution improved greatly in the 1960s as a result of the significant supply response of black workers to economic opportunities, as well as of the increased relative educational attainment of the black population. Black workers shifted occupations rapidly in response to reduced discrimination and improved opportunities.

(3) Black women advanced more rapidly relative to their white counter-parts than black men in part because declines in discrimination have greater effects on job markets, such as those for women, where on-the-job training and cumulated experience are less important and where gross turnover of the work force is rapid. Such markets allow older as well as younger workers to take advantage of new opportunities, and, moreover, they are the special province of women..."

and

".. the federal law extends to the South, accounts for one-half of black employment and exhibits the greatest differences between black and white incomes. One indication of the extent of the federal effort in the South is the fact that two-thirds of employer-union-agency cases before the EEOC in 1970 originated there, with Texas, Florida, and Louisiana having the largest number of charges investigated."

The reader should note the large gains in the South, where Civil Rights had more impact- something Sowell skips discussing substantively in multiple books. The data also shows a significant, measurable impact of Civil Rights Activity in the first 7-9 years after the CRA of 1964. QUOTE:

"The most important finding of Table 6 is that the post-1964 period did, in fact, witness an exceptional increase in black incomes, unaccounted for by previous trends, cyclical boom, or increased black educational attainment, and linked to civil rights activity. In regressions (1) and (4), the EEOC measure has a sizable significant coefficient, which implies that anti-discriminatory activity was responsible for increases in the black-white income ratio, from 1965 to 1971, of 15 percent for males and 27 percent for females, or 9 and 16 percentage points, respectively, from levels of about 60 percent in the early sixties."

And there it is- Sowell's claim refuted by hard data. Sowell in his book "Wealth and Poverty" 2016 proffers the same distorted pattern as to any discussion of CONTEMPORARY discrimination against blacks. It is as if such a thing barely exists, and the main problem is "liberals" stirring up trouble. But as we have seen in previous blog posts, contemporary discrimination is very much alive and well. And contemporary studies such as Pager and Shepard 2008 above, (The sociology of discrimination- Racial discrimination in employment, housing, credit, consumer markets.) illustrate this in detail, whether by careful statistical analysis, "tester" audits of employers or landlords, or studies of EEOC claims and court cases. Sowell' standard method- across many books- to poo-poo the effects of Civil Rights Laws by using a simplistic macro, national level comparison -such as income before Civil Rights laws, versus income after fails. Note- this does not mean that a critique of naive notions about what the Civil Rights Law could or could not do is not of value, nor does it mean that the INTERNAL work that needed to be done among blacks has received enough attention. Sure. Black nationalists and such related folk have made such arguments for 5 decades, as have a number of black liberals. But at least, if you are going to throw down a critique, but an honest one on the floor.

It is difficult to say whether Affirmative Action head count QUOTA plans in the 1970s (such as in higher Education for example) had as much impact as the opening up of equal opportunities under the Civil Rights Act. AA head count Quotas and Civil Rights Equal Opportunities, while related (such as in courts requiring discriminating employers to finally start promoting women or blacks after rights legislation or cases) are not the same thing. Claiming body-count quotas to be "essential" for black advance some 3 decades after the 1970s is a shaky exercise, especially given rising black educational attainment, and economic changes. But whatever the complex mix of factors, hard data debunks some of Sowell's persistent attempts, and more directly, attempts by such right-wing public intellectuals as Dinesh Dsouza, to poo-poo or dismiss civil rights legislation and policies as a significant factor in black gains in the 1960s.

Interestingly enough, the post-Civil Rights years, saw clear gains in not only general Black academic achievement but in IQ as well. Black Americans have gained between 4 to 6 IQ points relative to non-Hispanic whites between 1972 and 2002 on 4 major tests of cognitive ability. Dickens and Flynn (2006) make no claim that their finding covers all tests, nor do they claim blacks have caught up with whites, and they clearly note that other instruments do not show as large a gain
(2-3 points versus 4 to 6.)
Nevertheless, depending on the test taken, gains small and large, relative to whites are real, and the range of years showing improvement covers the "evils" of the welfare state as well as the "evil" affirmative action years. Yet within this period, the gains were registered. Per Dickens and FLynn QUOTE:

"It is often asserted that blacks have made no IQ gains on whites, despite relative environmental gains, and that this adds credibility to the case that the black/white IQ gap has genetic origins. Until recently, there have been no adequate data to measure black IQ trends. We analyze data from nine standardization samples for four major tests of cognitive ability. These suggest that blacks have gained 5 or 6 IQ points on non-Hispanic whites between 1972 and 2002. Gains have been fairly uniform across the entire range of black cognitive ability."
--Dickens WT(1), Flynn JR. 2006. Black Americans Reduce the Racial IQ Gap: Evidence from Standardization Samples. Psychol Sci. 2006 Oct;17(10):913-20

Summary and bottom line

America is no longer the open apartheid state it was in the past, and in some ways has changed for the better. But contrary to numerous popular narratives, this post shows that serious, credible scholars document the clear existence of racial discrimination in housing, employment, credit and consumer markets, a pattern frequently denied, dismissed or downplayed by right-wing and libertarian pundits and intellectuals. This state of things is important to remember in an era of fake news, where a vast propaganda effort is underway to distort and lie about what is actually happening on the ground. Part of the propaganda barrage is that whites somehow are "victims" that are so good and virtuous - lacking racial consciousness or bias, while the evil minorities take advantage of them. This is the bogus propaganda spiel of white nationalists like Jared Taylor for example, and other sympathizers. Why just look at the "giveways" of "affirmative action" to the culluds - oh and never mind that the primary beneficiaries of "affirmative action" are white women, or that the main beneficiaries of preferential treatment in college admissions are white legacy/alumni types.

Racialist author Taylor, elsewhere contradicts his own arguments. He commends whites for separating themselves from blacks, commends discrimination in favor of whites in housing, jobs etc, then turns around and laments that whites lack "racial consciousness" or "identity" per his book "White Identity." But this is nonsense. If white people are still so racially sensitive
as to segregate off themselves, and favor their own in housing, jobs and social contact, then how can they have no racial "consciousness?" This is the cynical, deceptive, dismal reasoning out there embraced by tens of millions, fed by around-the-clock propaganda mills online, and offline. This state of affairs is a warning to black folk, particularly black youth, that they have much work ahead of them, and that little time can afford to be wasted on the frivolous and unproductive. To black young people especially- things are better than in the past, but harsh realities still await in employment, housing and other spheres. Stop being naive, stop wasting time, and get down to bidniss.